prove that Societe D’ Equipments Internationaux Nigeria Limited is a contractor with NAF as alleged in the charge. It is the contention of the Defence that the prosecution suppressed the statement of the Defendant. The DW1 testified that he gave full explanation to STF1 who duly recorded him and took some annexures from him. That to his surprise at the trial some statements where he gave his explanations were not produced and those produced had their annexures removed or tampered with. To confirm this, the prosecution unwittingly produced one of the statement (Exhibit Z7) taken from the Defendant during investigation, which ought to have been served on Defendant in the proof of evidence. It is submitted that by holding on to the Defendant’s statement Exhibit Z7 and only tendering it during crossexamination, the prosecution had confirmed the Defendant’s version that some of his statements and documents were suppressed. See MOHAMMED v STATE (1991) LPELR 1901 (SC). Court is urged to hold that the prosecution have failed to prove its case against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Court should discharge and acquit the Defendant. 24